United Mine Workers of America on behalf of James Rowe and others, and Secretary of Labor on behalf of Thomas L. Williams v. Peabody Coal Company (Commission decision, February 4, 1985)

UMWA and Secretary of Labor v. Peabody Coal Company (FMSHRC KENT 82-103-D, et al.): Settled damages removed from review

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
KENT 82-103-D, KENT 82-105-D, KENT 82-106-D, LAKE 83-69-D
Decided
February 4, 1985
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1985, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1985
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This interlocutory order removed the settled monetary-damages issue in LAKE 83-69-D from review while the discrimination and civil-penalty issues remained pending. It did not decide the merits or become the final disposition of the consolidated cases. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Peabody Coal Company and miner Thomas L. Williams reached a written agreement settling Peabody's liability for monetary damages in Williams's discrimination case. The agreement did not admit any Mine Act violation. The Secretary asked the Commission to remove only that damages issue from its ongoing review, and Peabody agreed to the limited request. The Commission granted it for Docket No. LAKE 83-69-D. Whether Peabody violated the discrimination provision and whether a civil penalty was due remained open for later decision. This order states neither the settlement amount nor a penalty amount.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c), Mine Act discrimination proceedings.
  • Outcome: Review vacated only for Williams's settled monetary-damages claim; other review issues remained pending.
  • Key point: A partial settlement removed the private damages issue without resolving alleged discrimination or a civil penalty.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
ROWE, MORE & KESSINGER (UMWA) V. PEABODY COAL DDATE: 19850204 TTEXT: FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. February 4, 1985 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UMWA) on behalf of JAMES ROWE, et al., DOCKET NOS. KENT 82-103-D
JERRY D, MOORE
KENT 82-105-D
and
KENT 82-106-D
LARRY D. KESSINGER
v.
PEABODY COAL COMPANY

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
DOCKET NO. LAKE 83-69-D
on behalf of
THOMAS L. WILLIAMS
v.
PEABODY COAL COMPANY

ORDER
On December 27, 1984, the Secretary of Labor filed a motion with the Commission to dismiss or vacate a portion of the direction for review in these consolidated discrimination cases. The Secretary's motion states that respondent Peabody Coal Company ("Peabody") and Thomas L. Williams, the individual complainant in Docket No. LAKE 83-69-D, have entered into a written agreement settling the issues of Peabody's liability to Mr. Williams for monetary damages. A copy of the signed settlement agreement is appended to the Secretary's motion. The settlement agreement recited that it "does not constitute an admission by Peabody of any violation of section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977." The Secretary requests that the Commission dismiss or vacate only that portion of the direction for review in Docket No. LAKE 83-69-D pertaining to Peabody's liability for damages to Mr. Williams. The Secretary emphasizes that the granting of his motion would not affect Commission consideration of the other issues presented in this docket--namely, whether a violation of section 105(c) of the Mine Act occurred, and, if so, the appropriate civil penalty to be assessed.
~198
Because Peabody had not joined in signing the dismissal motion and the Commission wished to ascertain whether the parties were in agreement as to the limited scope of the dismissal sought, the Commission, on January 9, 1985, ordered Peabody to file a response to the Secretary's motion. On January 18, 1985, Peabody filed its response. Peabody indicates that it joins in the Secretary's request to vacate the direction for review "so as to indicate that the issues involving Respondent's liability to Mr. Williams for damages ... have been settled and are no longer the subject of review." Upon consideration of the Secretary's motion, Peabody's response thereto, and the underlying settlement agreement, we grant the Secretary's motion. The direction for review in Docket No. LAKE 83-69-D is dismissed and vacated only insofar as it pertains to the issue of Peabody's liability to Mr. Williams for monetary damages. The other issues presented in that docket are not affected by today's order, and remain for our review and decision.
~199
Distribution:
Dennis D. Clark, Esq.
1100 17th St., N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mary Lu Jordan, Esq.
UMWA
900 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Michael O. McKown, Esq.
Peabody Coal Company
P.O. Box 373
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Linda Leasure, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Virginia 22203

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace